Sunday, 28 April 2013

I recently received an email at my SSP account asking me
to explain my views on the currency Scotland should adopt after Independence. I
replied to say that this is one of those occasions where the question asked was
admirably short but the answer could not be. Here’s the gist of my reply.

First I should point out that all four options raised so far assume the
maintenance of a wholly capitalist model of economics and finance for Scotland.
I’m in favour of an Independent socialist Scotland with complete democratic
control and accountability of all our own economic decisions. Nonetheless, and
since I would not want to appear to be ducking the question, I will outline my
own view of the options presented so far in this debate.

There are, as you know, four currency options an Independent Scotland might
consider after the 2014 Referendum and they are; either to keep the present
arrangement with the pound remaining Scotland's currency, to move to what is
termed a 'Sterling zone' where we share the pound with the rest of the UK but
have control over our own fiscal policy, adopt the Euro or introduce our own
new currency.

All four options are complicated including leaving things as they are since
that would mean our Independent sovereign Government would be at the mercy of
decisions taken beyond our control by the Bank of England and the City of
London. And since, to a greater or lesser extent, all four options recognise
all countries in today’s globalised and interdependent world, where enormous
capital volumes are traded on a daily basis and moved in a millisecond, must
have effective controls with which to defend their economy and currency from
malicious speculators.

We must therefore approach this debate by asking what currency option gives
Scotland most control of our economy and best protects us from the predatory
instincts of financial speculators and hostile Governments. There have, after
all, been many instances in recent years where speculators have attempted to
undermine healthy economies and stable currencies for short term profit and
that remains a very real feature of the modern world.

Of the 4 options mentioned each has its drawbacks. It goes without saying that
keeping the Pound or establishing a 'Sterling Zone' means handing over a
considerable amount of power and control over Scotland's economy and spending
options to the Bank of England and the City of London. And many will inevitably
ask what then is the point of Independence? On the other hand joining the Euro,
as those who insist EU membership would compel us to do, means we would simply
replace the Bank of England's control over our economy with the European
Central Bank in Frankfurt. Given the terrible state of the ‘Eurozone’ and the
collapse of economies like Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Italy, Spain and Cyprus -
which all borrowed way beyond their ability to pay it back - this option would
be politically impossible to sell. And perhaps for that reason alone it is
probably the easiest to disregard at this stage.

So, on balance, after weighing up all the issues involved and recognising that
many other small Independent countries such as Norway, Switzerland and Iceland
prefer to use their own currency - because it gives them more control of
economic and financial decisions – this option seems to make most sense.

And I notice the ‘Greens’ agree. The SSP’s other partners in the 'Yes Scotland'
coalition however, the SNP, currently prefer the 'Sterling Zone' option. They
have it’s fair to say changed their mind on this issue often but their latest
view seems to me entirely in keeping with their softly, softly, and dare I say
conservative approach to selling Independence as a whole to those they believe
are frightened by the concept of change. The SNP argue, as I understand it,
that the transition to Independence should involve as little disruption as
possible to people's day to day experience. I suspect they may well advocate a
new Scottish currency being established in Scotland in due course.

Friday, 26 April 2013

Last
nights Scottish Socialist Party public meeting in Craigentinny, East Edinburgh
on the socialist case for Independence was a great success. I thought I might
give you a flavour of the issues that arose.

Both
speakers John Finnie, MSP [Independent: Highlands and Islands] and John
McAllion for the Scottish Socialist Party were in sparkling form.

Unfortunately
Sandra Webster, the SSP’s joint national spokeswoman, was unable to join us -
her bus from Glasgow broke down en route. John Finnie opened the proceedings by
insisting that Scotland was held back by the UK and the different values
prevalent in the South East of England. He mentioned for example how the NHS
South of the Border is facing further privatisation of services in many areas
which he envisages will only worsen in the months and years to come under the
Con-Dem Government. And the clear inference was that both the Con-Dems and New
Labour have the same intentions for Scotland’s health services should there be
a No vote in September 2014!

A
key feature of the No campaign’s strategy, suggested John, is to play down the
Tories involvement in ‘Better Together’ and by contrast play up Labour’s. They
recognise the Tories are a complete liability to the No camp and are urging
Cameron, Osborne, Ian Duncan Smith and the others not to come to Scotland over
the next 18 months. By the same token they are playing up Ed Milliband’s
alleged appeal and his chances of winning the 2015 Westminster General
Election.

But
even if Labour is elected in 2015, warned John Finnie, and it’s a big if,
working people need to remember Labour supports 80% of the Con-Dem cuts, they
will not repeal the bedroom tax, and they will keep the Trident nuclear
missiles Scotland wants rid of. They too will attack the Scottish working class
and people’s standard of living. That was after all the experience between 1997
and 2010 said John. Whilst the prospect of a Labour victory in 2015 may be the
No campaigns favoured option, people recognise Labour are now staunch
Unionists. They are as wedded to the City of London as the Tories and they will
not hesitate to make whatever cuts they deem necessary to ensure working people
pay for an economic crisis caused by the bankers and the rich.

John
McAllion also took up this theme as he ridiculed the increasingly ‘doom laden’
propaganda coming out of the No campaign HQ. He ridiculed their increasingly
gloomy predictions by highlighting how they present a relentless message of
fear, panic and impending catastrophe should Scots opt for self-determination.

‘Scotland
is too small they argue’ said John sardonically pillorying the No message

‘Scotland
is too poor they tell us, we have too many old people, we couldn’t defend
ourselves, none of our businesses could survive, we would be an economic basket
case which couldn’t survive without the pound, we are vulnerable to financial
speculators, cyber attacks and terrorists. And so it goes on. In other words
its doom, doom, doom, doom from the No camp.’

But,
said John, they need to make their minds up because Alistair Darling, their
leader, rather insists on a different line. He says repeatedly ‘Of course
Scotland could run its own affairs. Of course Scotland could be one of the
wealthiest countries in the world. Of course Scotland could make its own
decisions free from UK interference. Its just that we are even better off as
part of the UK.’

The
truth, insisted John McAllion, is that the UK does not serve Scotland’s needs
and hasn’t done for decades. They need us far more than we need them. North Sea
oil and gas revenues pour £40bn a year into the UK Treasury, with £1.25
trillion more due in over the next ten years. The UK Treasury and political
elite in Whitehall are terrified of losing Scotland. As well as our huge oil
and gas reserves, we have vast quantities of renewable energy and we have the
highly profitable whisky, engineering and financial services industries too.
So, Scotland becoming Independent would be a defeat for the British state
itself an enemy of socialism and a warmongering exploiter of peoples worldwide.

Both
men agreed the 2014 Referendum result is wide open and that there is every
reason to believe working class people will see the advantages Independence
brings, not least in avoiding the worst recession in 80 years and the
disastrous consequences facing working class people. The UK Government intends
to ruthlessly penalise working class people for a crisis caused by the greed
and recklessness of the bankers and the rich. An Independence vote in Sept 2014
offers a way to avoid that dreadful fate and to embark on a historic and much
more progressive course. Independence, bring it on, both men said as they
predicted a Yes majority next year.

Wednesday, 10 April 2013

It is another measure of the paucity of argument offered by
the defenders of nuclear weapons remaining on the Clyde when David Cameron
claims, as he did last week, they are there to protect us from North Korea. It
is not clear whether he had been drinking or not!

Kin Yong Un and the poor impoverished, frightened, North
Koreans seem, for the moment at least, to have taken the place of the Russians,
the Iranians and even the French as our gravest potential enemies in the
‘dangerous world’ the militarists never cease to warn us about. They have
invented one supposed threat to Britain’s security after another for the past
50 years to insist we must continue to threaten the world with nuclear
annihilation.

The fact remains Britain is one of only 9 ‘rogue’ states
with these indiscriminate nuclear weapons of mass civilian slaughter in the
world today; the USA, Russia, China, France, India, Pakistan, Israel and North
Korea being the others. Whilst the US is said to have around 60,000 nuclear
warheads, North Korea is suspected of having just one and no one is quite sure
if it even works. Be that as it may, launched from a site on land it certainly
can’t reach Britain. Korea is 6,000 miles away. Trident on the other hand is a
submarine based system constantly at sea and therefore capable of potentially
annihilating people in any country in the world.

Furthermore given that it is Britain [and the US] that has
been invading and occupying countries all around the world in recent years,
perhaps the question most people who share this planet with us will be asking
is ‘Who protects us from Britain and America?’

Opinion poll after opinion poll in Scotland show a large majority
of people here want rid of Trident. On Saturday that view will again be
demonstrated as thousands take to the streets demanding Scotland scraps Trident
and leads the way to a nuclear free world.

We in the Scrap Trident coalition want rid of them for many
reasons. We are outraged Scotland should be associated internationally with
such immoral missiles. They are in the last analysis un-useable militarily. And
we firmly believe the £100bn earmarked for a second generation of nuclear
weapons would be better spent creating jobs, building houses, hospitals and
schools and creating a better world, not threatening to destroy this one.

That’s why I will be marching in Glasgow this Saturday
alongside my colleagues in the Scottish Socialist Party. It’s not the first
Trident protest the SSP has been involved in these past 15 years and it
probably wont be the last. But it is nonetheless where all progressive minded,
peace loving, internationalists should be this weekend.

Saturday’s march and rally is the centre piece of a
weekend of action against Trident. There are workshops on non-violent direct
action on Sunday and a mass blockade of Faslane Naval base on Monday.

Tuesday, 9 April 2013

In death as in life Margaret Thatcher fiercely polarised
opinion. History will inevitably record that she governed for her kind, for
finance capital and for the elite who believe they have a right to power and
privilege. And it is their spokesmen above all who are today proclaiming her
many alleged political, economic and social achievements. But in the long run
history must distinguish myth from reality.

Whilst it is true that some in the City of London made
billions out of Thatcher’s decisions, millions more were pauperised by her. The
boardrooms of Britain revered her its true as she helped them maximise their
profits, but those profits came from the increased exploitation of the
unorganised and the weak. The neo-liberal political establishment today
celebrates her legacy and yearns for her return, but billions more are glad to
see the back of her.

And the wall-to-wall media coverage her death has attracted
reminds us what it is we loathed about her. In the former pit villages and
steel towns, including the one I grew up in, no tears will be shed for her
passing. She was despised in a way no other British Prime Minister ever was,
not even the warmonger and liar Tony Blair. And she was despised above all
because she destroyed communities of people and brought premature death to
millions. Indeed her wanton acts of brutality, greed and exploitation render
redundant the verse of St Francis of Assisi she famously cited on the steps of
Downing Street on assuming office in May 1979 - ‘Where their was hope she
brought despair, where there was harmony she brought discord, where there was
security she brought exploitation and fear’.

Margaret Thatcher’s legacy was mass unemployment and the
Poll tax. That’s what she will be remembered above all in working class
Britain. She was responsible for appalling levels of poverty, indebtedness and
insecurity and the fear that accompanies it. ‘Expert witnesses’ in studios
across the land tell us today she was right about the unions and the decrepit
state of British industry and made the necessary changes but they are wrong.

They refuse to see her real legacy. She was wrong about the
Poll tax, she was wrong about Scotland, she was wrong about privatisation, she
was wrong to sell off Britain to City spivs in London in a way and to an extent
never seen before. She is also responsible for Britain becoming one of the most
unequal societies in the Industrialised world.

And Internationally she disgraced Britain and our values
repeatedly with her use of the UN veto and her association with vicious regimes
like General Pinochet’s in Chile and the Apartheid Government in South Africa.
And history demands we record she goes to her grave having called Nelson
Mandela and the ANC ‘terrorists’ for insisting on black majority rule.

And yet it was her flagship policy, the Poll tax, which was
most typical of her and her kind. This transparent attempt to shift the burden
of tax from the rich to the poor not only came to symbolise her, it finally
claimed her. More than 14 million people refused to pay it in the biggest act
of mass defiance Britain has ever seen. Her legendary stubbornness meant she
was toppled by that rebellion and removed from office by her fellow Tory MP’s,
fearing they’d lose their own seats, hung her out to dry before they all ‘hung
together’ in the 1992 General Election.

And yet there is one important lesson above all the British
labour movement still has to learn from the Thatcher era, and Tony Benn put it
best, ‘ the working class in Britain need a leader to stand up for us in the
way Thatcher stood up for her class’.